/ck/ - Food & Cooking

What if I'm a liberal and I need someone to tell me how to live every detail of my life because I don't have the intellect to do so myself?
Check your freedom privilege, fascist.

>>5144547
I say stop smoking. It makes you stink, looks trashy, and is going to kill you in the end, at great cost to our health care system and taxpayers. So fuck off.

Anti smoking zealots are hypocrites. They're usually the largest smokers of pole.

I don't smoke, but it's your personal freedom to smoke, and the freedom of establishment owners to allow or disallow it. Nanny statists should get fucked.

>>5144554
/thread

We need people who are smarter than us to tell us how to live, because we're too stupid to do it ourselves and those in power are obviously more competent

Also, absurd taxes on cigarettes are the best indicators of a kleptocratic government.

I dunno, I was a pack and a half a day smoker for 15 years and even in the years after I quit, I felt strongly in favor of being allowed to smoke whenever and wherever you want, aside from confined places like aircraft cabins where you really have no choice but to make some concessions to the comfort of your fellow passengers.

Looking back though, one of the factors that made it hard to quit to start with was that everyone around me was a smoker, most of my closest friends were smoking buddies (they remain friends, and we each made the difficult decision to quit one by one).

Tobacco is one of life's great pleasures, but it's also fucking disastrous for public health. Putting more restrictions on where you can smoke doesn't force you to give up anything of value, it just forces you to decide whether you want to smoke, or mingle with crowds of random people in a confined space.

>>5144566
>social engineering statist pls go

>>5144566
I dunno man, it's a slippery slope when telling businesses what they can and cannot due just people you frown upon it.

You know what would really benefit society and have a much better impact? Banning all obese people from fast food places. But we can't do that, because its targeting a group of people-.....oh, wait.

>>5144570
>statist

Edgy /pol/ tween detected, opinion disregarded

>>5144574

The slippery slope argument cuts both ways. You know what would really benefit society? Letting armed gangs of religious maniacs roam the country shooting people for listening to the wrong kind of music because "the leading cause of death in the 20th century was gubmint" or whatever crazy nonsense these people actually believe.

>>5144566
>Putting more restrictions on where you can smoke doesn't force you to give up anything of value,
Why are you forcing your value system on others? What if I valued smoking, the feeling it gives me, and the places where I can enjoy smoking?

>but it's also fucking disastrous for public health.
Should we also ban pizza and burgers in the interest of public health?

>>5144574
Fat people will be on their hitlist eventually. The freedom stripping assholes need group think full compliance

>>5144582

Pizza and burgers aren't addictive. If you value smoking, you can still smoke at home, outdoors, or in a private club. It's what I did for the last years of my smoking habit, and it was nothing all that different from how I behaved when I was visiting my brother who is asthmatic, or my parents who are disgusted by the smell of tobacco. It's called being a decent human being.

>>5144579
>goes from banning smoking to genocide
Typical libtard no sense argument. Don't do it.

>>5144588
>Fat people will be on their hitlist eventually

They should be. Sitting next to a fattie on the train is the worst. I'd get ticketed by the cops if I took up an extra seat with my bag on a crowded train, but when a fatass takes up two seats I'm supposed to apologize for not being smaller.

>>5144590

That's where literally every last slippery slope argument goes, though. There are no exceptions. It's your fault for bringing it up in the first place.

>>5144589
>ex smokers not being the preachiest annoying fucks of the whole lot
You people give ex drinkers a decent run, I got to admit.

>>5144589
>Pizza and burgers aren't addictive.
Says who? I'm about as addicted to pizza as I am to my cowboy killers.

>It's what I did for the last years of my smoking habit, and it was nothing all that different from how I behaved when I was visiting my brother who is asthmatic, or my parents who are disgusted by the smell of tobacco.
That's great. I don't smoke around people who don't like it either.

>It's called being a decent human being.
Is being a decent human being still being a decent human being when it's not being a decent human being but a man being told by the government what to do?

>>5144597

Says doctors.

The government can tell you not to do a lot of bad things. If you have a problem with government, why limit it to the smoking issue?

>>5144589
>Pizza and burgers aren't addictive.
Fatty foods have been proven to be very addictive.

>>5144600
>The government can tell you not to do a lot of bad things.

Not really. They have a set of limits on what they can and can't tell us to do.

Unfortunately no one pays attention to that shit anymore so they are steamrolling over everything while they can

>>5144609
>They have a set of limits on what they can and can't tell us to do

Which limit are you referring to in the case of smoking? Please be as specific as possible.

>>5144554
>liberals in favor of laws that infringe on the freedom of the individual
The American way.

>>5144574
Smoking bans in public places and businesses are not just to keep things you frown upon away but because smoking unlike being fat has scientifically measurable direct negative health effect on the people around you.
The real bullshit is when you aren't allowed to smoke in the open air because it's a train station.

>>5144595
>arguing with a liberal
>2014

it never changes.

>>5144617

Very insightful point, you're really making me question my liberal elitism.

>>5144609
They for one can tell you not to take one of the wide variety of drugs aside from alcohol and nicotine.

>>5144615
>Which limit are you referring to in the case of smoking? Please be as specific as possible.

That's my point, was none (other than protecting minors). Until they passed a law (which one could argue was unconstitutional), any business owner could choose to allow smoking or not allow it. Why do we need the government to tell us how to run our business? If society doesn't like smoking in restaurants anymore, eventually I will have to adapt or go out of business. If society still wants to, then the government has no place sticking their noses where it doesn't belong. They serve us, not the other way around. Something liberals tend to forget.

Welp, I'm not going to jump into "gubbmint can't/can control me" fray here, but I will say this. I know 5 people who've died in the past two years due to smoking related cancers. Directly told it was because of smoking. Two of them were 65 and 64; one was 53; one was 41; and the other was 35. And I know someone who had to have a kidney removed because of smoking. There's a particular type of cancer that directly affects the kidneys that happens from smoking. Luckily, that kind can be fixed by having your kidney removed. I know many more people who have had and recovered from cancer who used to be smokers. I know one woman who has had half her lower jaw removed due to mouth and throat cancer from smoking. When I was a kid, there was man down the street who had no lower jaw at all, no nose, and a tracheotomy from being a heavy smoker, and he still smoked through his hole. To quote Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, " You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?"

>>5144616
It's a private establishment. I don't mind public bans if that's what our society wants. But people should be allowed to run their business as they see fit- no one is forcing you to go in and spend your money. Instead, they are forcing business owners to comply to your wishes

>>5144624
gov is responsible for people's health

>>5144624

So are you the kind of retard who thinks that the government should only regulate things that you personally find objectionable, like abortion and where people stick their penises, or are you the kind of retard who thinks that we should all be driving on toll roads and letting the city burn down because one guy was 3 days late paying for his private fire department subscription?

>>5144624
>They serve us, not the other way around.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148514/first-time-majority-supports-public-smoking-ban.aspx
Seems like they served you guys well.

>>5144629

2nd hand smoke is fucking nothing

>>>/pol/

>>5144622
>They for one can tell you not to take one of the wide variety of drugs aside from alcohol and nicotine.

Just because a law is passed banning something doesn't mean it's right, or constitutional. Liberals split up white and black people into separate groups forcing them to eat at different places. According to them (and you) they had the "authority" to do it, but is it right?

>>5144633
Democracy is not the same as liberty. They can occasionally clash. You see, you dumb fucking nigger, we're on the topic of liberty here.

>>5144629
[citation needed]
"general welfare" =/= my personal health nanny

>>5144632
>So are you the kind of retard who thinks that the government should only regulate things that you personally find objectionable, like abortion and where people stick their penises
lol no

>are you the kind of retard who thinks that we should all be driving on toll roads and letting the city burn down because one guy was 3 days late paying for his private fire department subscription?
again, that's idiotic.

There is a role for government. Public services are necessary. Micromanaging how we conduct our business between each other? Not so much.

Any time a liberal hears a "less government" argument they immediately jump the rails and think I'm advocating for a "Mad Max" reality. It's amusing.

>>5144633
>public smoking ban
>not private business
>libtards cannot into reading

>>5144640
Can you sum up your argument against smoke bans again? It seems to me you are arguing banning drugs of any kind is unconstitutional and bad.

Also I'm not sure what you think my statement has to do with "liberals" separating blacks and whites.

>>5144650

"Micromanaging" is just another way of saying for "I happen to object to it in this particular case"

If you read news, you might recently have heard of a company in W. Virginia called Liberty Industries (interesting choice of name, right?) In your view, the way they conduct business is a private affair. In a sane person's view, the way you conduct business becomes a problem when you start destroying the public health because of the way you happen to think you should conduct your "private" affairs.

Smoking and drinking should never be divorced.

Nothing like drinking a beer, lightning up, and nodding imperceptibly to the country music playing on the jukebox.

>>5144652
Believing the government has the authority to do something does not make it right, even if they do pass laws to do it. That was my point behind the Jim Crow Laws.

>Can you sum up your argument against smoke bans again?
I'm against forcing businesses to operate a certain way just because a group of people in washington say so. Now before I get another question let me clarify that is separate from labor laws. That's a different pony.

If society really doesn't want people smoking in restaurants, then you would already have started to see restaurants ban smoking themselves (which they were doing). It was completely unnecessary to pass a nationwide ban when the businesses themselves were already responding to the consumer and adjusting their policies. But instead of having mostly smoke-free places and a few smoking-allowed places, we no longer have a choice. It's not for most people (or me even), but some people enjoy smoking and eating, and would pay to go to a place that allows it. Whose to say that they aren't allowed to do it. (rhetorical)

>It seems to me you are arguing banning drugs of any kind is unconstitutional and bad.
I would argue that our "War on Drugs" has been a complete failure. The kind of money we spent pursuing non-violent drug offenders could have been put to better use for drug counseling and public rehab clinics. (Pic related)

Me personally? You're right I don't think they should have bans, just severe regulations and taxes. I'm of the opinion that as long as you do not harm another person, you have every right to do with your body what you want to (kind of like the pro-choice argument, aint it). It should be discussed in a rationale debate other than just "lol drugs are bad arrest everyone that does them". Non-violent drug users should be treated as addicts, not criminals. They need help, and throwing them into a violent jail system only turns them into worse criminals.

>>5144655
I agree, once a business starts harming the public that beings a public problem.

People smoking in my restaurant because they choose to is not.

Other people shouldn't have to breathe your cancer causing shit.

Good riddance.
Enjoy your cancer - The public won't have to anymore.

>>5144616
>muh secondhandsmoke fallacy
>cars remain unbanned

don't mind me, smoking my prescribed cigarettes i got from my doctor

>>5144667
I think the easiest argument for a nation wide ban of smoking in private businesses is, what you already excluded: labor laws. If we assume passive smoking is bad, then private businesses shouldn't be allowed to expose their employees to it (even if they quite willingly like to have a smoke themselves). Then it's not different from no-slip shoes in kitchens and breathing masks around chemicals. I don't know if people in favor of that ban argue that way but it would actually be funnier if instead of banning smoking for the customers, employees had to wear gas masks.

>>5144682
Cars are unfortunately not a luxury but a necessity. But I guess you could ban cars that spew shit everywhere in cities. Which is already happening in Germany for example.

>>5144689
What if my restaurant is a small time shop run by me and my wife who both smoke?

Again, this shouldn't even be an issue. Restaurants were doing away with smoking sections already. The only ones that would have stayed smoking-allowed are places were most people are probably smokers anyway.

The worst part about it is that it's an arbitrary law. Bars can smoke, but restaurants can't. If your alcohol sales exceed a certain percentage of your food sales, you can smoke. If you sell above a certain percentage in food sales, you can't smoke.

Crazy isn't it? If what you say is true than no bars should have smoking either. But no one is complaining about that because the only bars that are still smoke-filled are typically dive bars, and most of the staff and customers...smoke. Why make it different for shitty restaurants?

>>5144694
>Which is already happening in Germany for example
Europoors really never do learn, do they?

I dunno, I smoke but I don't have any problem with those laws. I don't even smoke inside my own house though, I ALWAYS go outside to smoke, and tbh wouldn't eat at a place that allowed smoking inside even though I'm a smoker myself.

>>5144712
Me again, also
>Just as employees should have the right to refuse to work in a smokey environment.
not everyone could always just find another job, just saying. I don't think it's right to subject employees to second hand smoke just because it's the only job they can get.

>>5144723
...but they applied for a job knowing it was a smoke-filled atmosphere. It wasn't like they changed their policies after the person was hired.

That's like applying for a job at a strip club and being shocked when there are titties in your face.

>>5144727
It's an unsafe work environment.

>>5144709
Banning certain cars in cities isn't quite on the same page as mass murder. You'll just have to pay a fine.

>>5144730
lol. So is my construction job. Where's muh safety heros?

>>5144730
>It's an unsafe work environment.
Says you.

If that was true, how come all bars aren't banned from smoking?

>>5144730
It is not.

>>5144730
Life is inherently unsafe, snowflake.

>>5144733
>banning cars isn't mass murder

but much freddumbs! first they came for the cars! trains are communism, the constitution says so.

>>5144734
That would be occupational health and safety, or your local equivalent.

Unless you are working in a third world nation, your construction site is heavily regulated for safety.

>>5144547
>I should be free to smoke cancer sticks in enclosed environments and make everyone else inhale the foul-smelling carcinogenic garbage I inhale!
Nope.

>>5144707
I don't really know how labor safety laws are applied to family businesses or those without employees. Are you free to harm yourself however stupid you wish to? Then you should be allowed to smoke and have customers smoke.
Obviously that's now how the ban was handled though, it's stupid.

>>5144744
pretty sure he's american, so yeah. third world nation indeed.

in4 wikifaggia

>>5144744
Yet thousands of people in my profession are hurt every year.
You cannot legislate total safety in this life, my pie eyed friend.

>>5144746
>are you free to harm yourself
>smoking in a crowded bar

wrong thread?

>doing something that is harmful to others
>the government does something about it
>ITS MY LIBERTY TO DO THIS
>THANKS OBAMA
>THIS IS THE END OF THE WHITE RACE
>American logic

Here, check out this video of your national bird flying into a window: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtHDV_hxBrY

>>5144734
You do have safety regulations, Anon. Unless you are an illegal immigrant.

>>5144748
better get rid of those pesky laws then, if they weren't successful at ensuring absolute universal safety
>this is what idiots actually believe

>>5144752
>can't handle living life outside of what my special mommy government allows me to do
>Stockholm syndrome sets in; makes fun of others who wish to have the freedom to do what they want

I see the poor people from europe never grew out of the whole "serf" mentality

>inb4 i'm australian
like there's a difference.

>>5144758
>ensuring absolute universal safety
This is exactly what retards like you strive for and continue to fail at.

>>5144758
>some people don't like smoking in a restaurant
>better ban it for everyone, rather than the common sense approach of just not eating there

>this is what idiots actually believe

>>5144761
>elect a government to take care of the needs of the people
>they do their job
>THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS

Ridiculous.

>>5144775
>you NEED to have all restaurants be smoke-free, even if every one inside of it wishes to smoke
>you NEED a mommy to tell you what is healthy or harmful for you; otherwise you just sit in cigarette smoke because you are too stupid to get up and leave

>>5144775
>needs
>gimmie, gimmie, I need, I need
why eurotrash cannot into success

>>5144547

Or, you could stop being a whiny cunt and go outside for 5 minutes to smoke your cancer stick so the smell doesn't stick to the walls and my clothes.

I mean, maybe I could understand allowing restraunts to decide whether or not they allow smoking, but if you think employment in this day and age- in any day and age- is as easy as "refusing to work" because of a "smokey enviornment", you're not only retarded, you're an entitled little shit. If I'm working in a cubicle 3 feet from you, you can damn well use your fucking legs to go smoke outside. Obviously it's not coming out of your paycheck, so quit your whining, get it over with, and get back to work.

Although the concept of work is clearly a foreign concept to you since you're so simple-minded about it.

>>5144748
No you cant, yet you can not suggest that workplace safety hasn't improved with regulation.

>>5144782
>you're an entitled little shit
Says the girly faggot that can't stand a little smoke

>>5144777
>>5144779
>let the American shitposting commence
>don't even try to reasonable

Americans really don't care about anybody than themselves right? And i'm not talking about the nation, I mean single Americans.

>>5144790

Wow, it's like you really don't understand why smoking isn't necessary and why not everyone should have to put up with your disgusting habit. If it isn't absolutely necessary to live, you are being an entitled little shit when you say that "employees should have the right to refuse to work in a smokey enviornment." I mean, are you fucking kidding me? Do you even realize how you sound? I should have to leave my fucking job, in this economy, because you can't walk 10 feet to the fucking door and smoke outside? Go fuck yourself, and keep wasting your money on smokes, you uneducated little shit. I'd honestly bet you didn't even go to college.

>>5144788
Not him, but yes I agree.

However, regulation =/= bans,

Want to regulate smoking in restaurants? Go ahead. Make the place stick a big fat neon sign out front that says "This restaurant allows smoking, 18+ only". That still better than an outright ban because the owners at least have somewhat of a choice.

>>5144797
A little bit of smoke might put some hair on your chest, Sally.
At the very least it'll calm your mad.

>>5144766
>some accidents are not severe to require the safety belt to activate
>why do we need these nuisances required anyways

>this is what you actually believe

>>5144547

Smoking is a choice. Stop whining. The other poster was right, smokers are entitled and, on average, not very educated.

>>5144795
Your idea of 'reasonable' and mine don't jibe, euroslave.

>>5144797
>being this butthurt

Did you apply for the job knowing they allowed smoking? Or did they change their policies after you were hired?

>that feel when /ck/ has become a second /int/ due to American internet aggression

Every. day.

>>5144800
>Can you walk around a construction site without hard hat/safety boots?

No because this regulation places a ban on employees who do not fit the dress code.

>>5144808
>comparing smoking to accidents

Oh no! Did you "accidentally" step into that bar that's full of smoke? Oh shit, you just "accidentally" ordered a drink there instead of leaving! Anon what's happening? You just "accidentally" chose to stay there instead of leaving and finding another place to go! Oh the humanity!

>>5144822
Go find a europoor cooking board that focuses on baking scones while bicycling through roundabouts then, you toothless wonder.

>>5144822
>complaining about American presence on an American website

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>5144826
Did you accidentally have to pay for health care based on the effects of cigarette smoke to every employee/customer of that business?

>>5144829
>being this mad at a stranger on the internet

Restaurants yes, thought I really do think bans are unnecessary because I believe most proprietors would enforce smoking bans of their own volition anyways. I smoke and I don't like the idea of eating in a smoke-filled room.

Pubs FUCK NO. These bans have been devastating to traditional pub culture. I and a lot of other people would just like a warm room where friends could have a pint and smoke and entertain ourselves now that this oasis of rejuvenation have been taken from us YES I am pissed.

>going to a pub
>"I only go to a pub to have a smoke there"
>smoker's logic

>>5144838
>Did you accidentally have to pay for health care based on the effects of cigarette smoke to every employee/customer of that business?

Funny you say that. Thanks to statists like yourselves I am now forced to pay far and above what my health insurance actually costs, because we have to be "equal", even though I'm a far less drain on the medical system then most fatties and old people.

Like I said before, if you're going to ban smoking in restaurants, you should ban fat people from eating bad food at restaurants.

Obesity drives the medical system costs up far higher than smoking. The day you ban landwhales from walking into a McDonalds is the day I'd accept a ban on smoking in a private establishment.

>>5144847
>going to pub
>I don't like smoke so every place in the entire country should have to cater to my whims
>liberal logic

>>5144829
Thank you for the visual of a snooty Frenchman baking scones while riding his bike endlessly around a round about...you made my day

>>5144853
Not to mention end of life care costs for 'healthy' people who are dying of nothing far surpasses smoking related illness.

Do you believe in pension plans?

>>5144865
Exactly.

I think the number is somewhere above 80% of our entire medical system costs are spent on people in the last few weeks of their lives.

Let's ban people older than 80, it would benefit society much greater than banning smoke in my local diner.

>>5144866
Not sure who you're asking, but I think it's up to whatever agreement you and your employer comes to.

Do I think public employees should be getting a retirement account funded purely on my tax dollars without contributing? Hell no. If I have to fund my own retirement plan union fucks should be able to do the same

>>5144847
>I support the eroding of rights only when they don't inconvenience ME

>>5144871
So you believe in a system where what you pay into it, you expect back more then what you paid

How common is it for Americans to use the setup in pic related for their bathrooms?

I went to visit some relatives in Iowa, and got to stay in their house. They lived in a pretty small city, and had to do this because of something that had to do with their city sewage treatment.

Essentially, you had to throw the used TP in a separate bin, and then also scoop the turds back up and put them in yet another separate bin.

I've experienced the TP thing in hotels in Cyprus, Spain and Greece, but the scoop thing came as a complete shock and I thought they were joking.

Could some American shed some light on this? How prevalent is it?

Thanks.

>>5144875
>So you believe in a system where what you pay into it, you expect back more then what you paid

...are you asking if I believe in the basic principles of investment?

Retirement accounts don't just sit there. Most of them are placed in relatively safe mutual funds or trade indexes. Do you know how the stock market works?

>>5144881
I've never seen it once in my life, and I'm glad because that sounds really disgusting.

>>5144881
Never seen it before in my life. Were they living in a trailer? It was probably set up to some shitty sort of septic drainage field that only accepted non-solid waste material. But that is the poorest of the poor

>>5144881
They had a septic tank system that they did not take care of.

It's not connected to a municipal sewage system.

>>5144547
Keep your lung cancer to yourself, you degenerate

All smoking should be banned in all public places like sidewalks and parks. However no government should steal the right of a property owner to do what they want on their land when that act does no harm to others who are not there of their free will

>>5144881
>be in America all life
>never heard of this
>love your illustration

sounds like someone who does not take care of their septic system

was the scoop slotted or did u have to pour the water out of the scoop without plopping the terds back in?

>>5144547
What is all this shit about lung cancer?

Clearly a bait thread, but I just don't like the smell of smoke. There is no reason to smoke while you eat.

People who smoke are terrible smelling idiots, but people who take pleasuring in controlling others (liberals) are even worse

Fact: Cooks that smoke are better cooks than non smoking ones. Put that in your butthurt pipes and smoke it.

>>5144939
Fact: the vast majority of good and bad professional cooks are trashy people

>>5144939
Fact: MOST cooks are smokers.

>>5144947
>>5144949
I won't argue with either point. I bring it up to introduce some relevance to this board.

>>5144869
Old age is not contagious and a bunch of crippled, senile 80 year olds are definitely not gonna inspire anyone to get that old, quite the opposite.

>>5144763
>a plane crashed
>better eliminate the NTSB, stupid libruls

this is exactly what you sound like

>>5144962
>a plane crashed
>better ban planes


this is exactly what you sound like

>>5144962
hey liberals, lets ban driving to reduce traffic deaths too

>>5144960
>Old age is not contagious
With continued medical advancement to eek out every possible year of old people's lives, it is in a way.

>>5144966
sounds good to me. can't move around without texting on your phone? you get to stay home, you piece of shit. decent people have trains anyway.

>>5144977
>people that live in tiny, inbred shanty town-countries have trains anyway.

>>5144977
>decent people have trains anyway.
If by decent people you mean the poorest of the poor

Smoking near people who don't smoke is rude because it smells like shit

That's all though, secondhand smoke is a load of horseshit. My dad is a doctor and has been laughing about it since I was a kid.

>>5144977
>trains
Those are awesome if you live ina tiny cramped place. However if you like having living space and a high standard of living, they really are not feasible

>"Waaah why can't I kill my lungs and force other people to kill theirs in public too? It's all about me!"
Another reason why I hate smokers.

>>5144994
>Smoking near people who don't smoke is rude because it smells like shit
Exactly, its not much different than wildly yelling for no reason constantly. its inconsiderate, juvenile, and annoying

>>5144999
Good thing you live in a bubble and breath freshly filtered air, anon. Wouldn't want those trips to get sickypoo.

>>5145003
This.
You wouldn't want to sit in a restaurant surrounded by people with extreme BO being blown at you by oscillating fans, would you? Or people who scream "WHOOP WHOOP" from less than five feet away directly at you for at least three continual minutes at every 10 minute (or less) interval, would you?

I thought this was the food & cooking board.

>ITT fucking retarded liberals

Nope. Not getting sucked into an argument with idiots who never stay on point and just cover their ears shouting LALALALALA whenever anything contradicting them is said.

>>5145030
Much rather sit around them than some whining little girl faggot crying about a little smoke in a setting where they KNEW THERE WOULD BE FUCKING SMOKE.

>>5145037
I'd rather deal with neither

Smokers are shitty people. They smoke around you like they don't even care
You fart near them and they get all pissy

>>5145037
>says the smoker

Yeah, no one is going to take your opinion seriously because you're arrogantly biased.

>>5145054
Not everyone in this thread is a smoker, and as someone who does have issues breathing smoke I know not to go to places where there's smoking.
I could go, if I wanted to, if that would make my experience better, but I wouldn't go to someplace that makes me feel uncomfortable and then complain about the uncomfortableness.

>>5145054
I get it. You and your kind are the direct result of parents dressing their kids in full BMX battle rattle just for taking the bike around the block. The world is a scary and dangerous place and you'll be damned if you'll have a part in it.

>>5145054

I'm not a smoker and I don't like how cigarettes smell but I don't really care that much, I think having a smoking section in a restaurant is sufficient

>>5145054
>no one is going to take your opinion seriously
I don't take anything a smoker says seriously as the very fact that they choose to smoke shows how uneducated and poor at making decisions they are

>>5145060
But you're making what is essentially a second issue here. The issue is whether bars and restaurants can make their own choice about allowing smoking. Most cities that have smoking bans haven't really been influenced by the "whining little girl faggot crying about a little smoke", they've been influenced by politicians, lobby groups, special interests, and business owners. It's much more political than what most people in this thread think it is. I'm always amused by people who want to blame other random citizens for things that are cooked up and promoted by the government itself. Also, many business owners are in favor of smoking bans, because it makes their business go up in many cases. Smokers aren't going to quit just because they can't get into a certain bar. They will find a way to work around it and keep smoking, but just as you don't have a right to jack off on someone in public, you don't have a right to make someone breathe your smoke, either. That's why they can enact these bans in public places. You're free to smoke, but not necessarily around other people, as it is without doubt a health hazard.

>>5144566
>aside from confined places like aircraft cabins where you really have no choice but to make some concessions to the comfort of your fellow passengers.

Did you know before it was illegal to smoke it was actually healthier on airplanes because they had to pump in more oxygen?
Now it's banned that's why people experience headaches and more ill effects because they only pump in the very minimum now

I don't smoke but I support smoking on planes

>>5145091
>as it is without doubt a health hazard.
Not any more than walking down the street and breathing exhaust fumes, it isn't. But you're a hypercritical asshole so it makes sense you don't want to acknowledge that.

>>5145097
I wonder if Ill get weird looks if I ask them to pump some more in

>>5145091
>bar owners want to ban smoking
lol, you live in a fantasyland, son

>>5145091
I think that bars and restaurants should have the choice in the matter, though I am happy that bars are able to have smoking in their establishments.

I know of a few restaurants who act as a bar so that they have this option.

I don't really care one way or the other whether smokers quit or not, I think that's their own prerogative. But I also don't think that we should always follow lobby or special interest groups, because they have their own agenda, and care more, I believe, in the agenda than the people they harm or hurt in doing so.

I don't agree with the notion that we're greatly inhibited by smokers either. Avoiding it is something that's easy to do, and those situations should be taken on by a personal manner. I suppose it's a difference in where you think the line crosses where different rights begin and where our government has a say in things.

>>5145106

They won't, they gotta scrape and shave to maximise their profits after all

And of course you the consumer should pay the cost

>>5145109
A lot of them were against it originally out of fear of the unknown, but most ones in places where the bans have gone through report it has helped business.

>>5145008
The intelligence of a smoker everybody

>>5145130
Not with the bar owners I know (all 3), it hasn't.

>>5144966
We are way too easy on drivers. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I don't give a shit about "how am i gonna get to werk". Maybe you shouldn't have shit all over mass transit, cager scum.

>>5145138
maybe its just that I am from a civilized land where the alcohol is more important than the cigarettes, not from the south

>>5145144
>Maybe you shouldn't have shit all over mass transit, cager scum
What?

Also america is way to large and prosperous for public transportation to be viable

>>5145131
>The intelligence of a smoker everybody
>smoker everybody
>intelligence

>>5145146
You dun swallered the bait

>>5145145
Minnesotan here. I never went to bars until they banned smoking. Fags used to stink up every fucking establishment in my area because they can't go half an hour without feeding the habit.

The last thing I want while relaxing, talking with friends, and listening to music is having to deal with the stale rancid odor of cheapass tobacco products.

>>5144989
>>5144990
>>5144995
What are taxis, buses, and METRO?
"Oh it says here that you've killed a family of 5 because you were drunk and another couple from texting while driving? Why shouldn't we take away your license?"
"Well you see I've got a job, and I've got to get to it somehow."

>>5144547

I agree, but smoking is a terrible habit that impacts everyone. I'm perfectly ok with it being illegal in restaurants.

>>5145152
I didn't turn 21 until after the smoking ban in Wisconsin, and its kind of nice that I don't have to deal with that shit while drinking. I was on an Indian Reservation up north last summer and there the ban doesn't apply and it was fucking awful

>>5144547
LISTEN HERE YOU SHIT FACE.

THIS IS WHY SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES SHOULD BE BANNED.

BECAUSE SECOND HAND SMOKE IS PROVEN TO CAUSE FUCKING CANCER AND OTHER DISEASES.

You can smoke all the fuck you want. AS LONG AS NO ONE ELSE BREATH IN YOUR SECOND HAND SMOKE.

>>5145147
I'd be surprised if a smoker could even finish saying "intelligence" without coughing.

>>5145154
>What are taxis, buses, and METRO?
Expensive, late, or plain not running for the day. Also, enjoy being gangraped at the back of the bus.

>"Oh it says here that you've killed a family of 5 because you were drunk and another couple from texting while driving? Why shouldn't we take away your license?"
I wasn't arguing that drunks, especially those involved in accidents, should have their licenses revoked.

>>5145162
cryingbaby.jpg

>>5145154
>What are taxis, buses, and METRO?
Work ok for small impoverished areas, not viable for the vast majority of the population

>>5144616
It's the fucking right way that you're not allowed to smoke at a train station.
>muh freedom
Yes freedom is important BUT you're infringing on all secondhand smokers' freedom around you by causing them physical harm.
They're waiting for the train as well, what should they do? Leave the train station, run away from every smoker to avoid your smoke?
This is bulllshit.
Your freedom ends where mine starts, so you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places with lots of people, where you hurt them.

Another thing, no sane person would deem it reasonable if everyone would be allowed to walk around the train station and spray around toxic fumes from a spray bottle, right? That's the same as smoking at a train station + the littering they all do with their cigarette stubs.

>>5145154
>What are taxis, buses, and METRO?

You don't go out very much or don't need to go very far if you think public transport is acceptable

>>5145173
>no sane person would deem it reasonable if everyone would be allowed to walk around the train station and spray around toxic fumes from a spray bottle, right?
Yet you have no problem breathing exhaust from the train and all the other traffic.
>muh airborne pollution is ok, yous is not
You are such a simpleton, it hurts.

>>5145185
That doesn't mean traffic should produce toxic fumes.

What do you think all the Chinese people raging over their pollution's about?

The fact that society choose to ignore traffic but not smoking doesn't make smoking or traffic pollution right.

Learn to logic.

>>5145185
also what do you think all the taxes on gas's about?

it's for the fucking pollution dipshit

>>5145169
>>5145171
You guys are hilarious and ironically sound like the white trash you keep on mentioning.
lol at "I should be able to drive no matter what I do because I think I'll get raped on a public transit system."

>>5145191
No one ever said you should be able to drive no matter what

>>5145188
>>5145190
>this justifies my knee jerk reactions to a cylinder of burning leaves.
Like I said.

>>5145154
I love public transport.
When you go somewhere where it's common and everyone uses it, it's so much better than having to drive yourself places.

>>5145194
I do.
And I do.

>>5145185
Yes, I have have a problem with breathing exhaust from the train and all the other traffic.
I'm not someone who likes to breathe cancerous shit, do you? I guess smokers do, right?
Just because there's some air pollution from other sources doesn't mean that any kind of additional unnecessary pollution which is a harm to other people is justified. That's just a logical fallacy.
We should reduce all pollution as much as possible and that's what humanity is also doing.
This is done with cars and other sources of pollution but we're obviously still not done with this problem.
Now tell me, how could what you just said possibly justify you smoking in my face?

>>5145198
Fuck off smoking addict.

I was so sick of every interior building being filled with that awful stench.

It's your own damned fault for not being able to control yourselves. If smokers had any sense of the word moderation, that bill might not have passed.

>>5145171
>impoverished

yeah dude all those major cities are such poorfag shitholes

it's not like cities have higher mean and median incomes than anywhere else

>>5145212
>Fuck off smoking addict.
Gosh, that was hash, man.
It's really like you really do only deal in knee jerk emotions

>>5145209
>ow could what you just said possibly justify you smoking in my face?

Secondary smoke is a load of bullshit, that's why. Me smoking a cigarette does not affect you at all, except perhaps if you don't care for the smell. And in that case, why would you be in a smoking establishment in the first place? That would be attending a metal concert and then complaining that it was loud and there were people wearing leather jackets there.

>>5145223
>yeah dude all those major cities are such poorfag shitholes
They mostly are

>>5145242
CITATIONS

Look for one scientific paper , peer - reviewed, taht says fucking second hand smoke is healthy.

Ok for the sake of argument I will even pretend that second hand smoke is healthy. But non smokers, the majority of the population, don't like to smell your shit and choke on smoke.

What gives you the fucking right to make other people uncomfortable?


You ONLY have right to do whatever you want, IF you don't bother anyone else.

>>5145242
>Secondary smoke is a load of bullshit, that's why. Me smoking a cigarette does not affect you at all, except perhaps if you don't care for the smell
Yeah, I can't take you seriously: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

>And in that case, why would you be in a smoking establishment in the first place?
Now you're moving the goal posts. I was talking about smoking in public places like at a train station. If there's something like a smoking establishment then I resepct that and I would never go to such a place because I don't want to breathe smoke.
I believe that people who want to harm themselves should be free to do that, none of my business right? IF they're not forcing me to breathe in their cancerous smoke. But again, I never argued that I should have the right to go to a "smoking establishment" and demand from people to stop smoking. You're just putting words in my mouth.

I'm all for small government and protecting civil liberties, but have no problem with these public smoking bans.
Fact is most people have realized tobacco is a disgusting substance that causes untold amounts of damage to our society and they want nothing to do with it. If you want to smoke, do it away from the public where it is no longer acceptable.
Banning public exposure to tobacco and legalizing weed is great and shows an intelligent and humane legislative body.

>>5145272
this guy

>>5145272
People spewing out "small government" they don't even know what that means.

Small government means that the government will have one function, that is the implementation of justice and see that the legal system is upheld and justice is being done.

There's no way under that definition smoking and spewing your second hand smoke on someone else's face is legal.

>>5145272
>causes untold amounts of damage to our society
No, no fantastical claims by anti smokers are ever made.

>>5145272
>If you want to smoke, do it away from the public where it is no longer acceptable.
Nah. I don't think I will. Now what?

>>5145284
Ciggarete companies do their own cost benefit analysis on the damage done by their product.

They are readily available from their company (if you contact them) and from government agencies.

You go read them and you can see how the ciggarete companies are acknowledging their own product's damages, in dollar terms.

Educate yourself before speaking public.

>>5145286
well prepared to get fine, arrested, depend on local law. It's still a criminal record, just a reminder.

Or on a bad day get beaten up.

>>5145282
Small government is a relative term. it means less massive than it currently is. Its not as specific as you are making it to be

>>5144582
Pizza and Burgers aren't inherently unhealthy.

>>5145296
>Or on a bad day get beaten up.
Lol. Not by a pussy nonsmoker, I won't

>>5145109
I said business owners, dude. You're one of those people who only sees what they want to see.

>>5145291
Is it....dun, dun, dun........UNTOLD AMOUNTS?
Because you just told me that.

>>5145270
>If there's something like a smoking establishment then I resepct that and I would never go to such a place because I don't want to breathe smoke.

So why are you in support of bureaucrats who want to shut down smoking in privately owned businesses that offer food and/or drink? If a guy wants to open such an operation, why support laws which make it impossible for him to do so? It's his money. It should be his rules.

Is it any more absurd than the government telling you that you can't smoke in your house? I don't think it is.

>>5145105
>get load of this guy

Nice overly reactionary, hysterical response.

>>5145270
>cancer.org

I realize that is what the convential wisdom loves to parrot. But if you actually read the studies that this is based on there is a very tenouous link between secondhand smoke any any sort of disease. They can certain prove that secondhand smoke contains carcinogens. But whether or not they occur in a concentration high enough to matter when inhaled by bystanders has not been proven in a study. So we know that there are some potentially hazardous substances in smoke, but nobody has reliably proven any negative health effects to 2ndhand smokers--it's mostly "meta" studies, little that is concrete.

>I was talking about smoking in public places like at a train station.

Sorry, I misunderstood you there. I didn't realize you were talking about generic public areas like a station. In that case I agree with you completely.

Personally I think that smoking is fucking nasty. I hate the smell, the smoke bothers my eyes, etc. But that being said the supposed negative health effects are very overblown, IMHO. And personally I have no problem with private establishments having indoor smoking. I simply won't go there if I don't like the atmosphere.

>>5145307
Yeah, dude. And I told how I personally know three of them. Perhaps you blindly believe what anecdotal evidence you are spoon fed?
Dude.

>>5145303
but you are not putting them in other people's mouth.

>>5145331

I don't even smoke but you aren't putting cigarettes in peoples mouths by smoking around them, secondhand smoke is a load of horseshit.

They smell like shit though.

>>5145308
First of all, in a democratic society, they are your representitives. Their action is the will of the people. If you don't think their action represent what the population wants, then call him out for it. Impeach him, vote for someone else.

There's this inheret disconnection between citizens and government in democracies. There is not fucking difference. Democracy is literally rule by the people. If you think the government is special, then your country has failed in it's education.

>>5145313
Yet, true to a fault.

>>5145336
again citations, or stfu.

>>5144588
The problem is that the disgustingly fat are a large percent of the population while smokers are small group. Fat people have much more voting power than smokers. Just look at what happened when the Mayor of New Your tried to limit soda sales.

>>5144547
>Just as employees should have the right to refuse to work in a smokey environment.

Yeah, cause people would be totally willing to just quit there job like that. You make it sound like the folks working at bars have their pick of any dozen bars they could be working in.

>>5145322
You just used the textbook definition of anecdotal evidence, you fucking retard. Nice circular logic.

>>5145339
Jumping in to nitpick here.
>First of all, in a democratic society, they are your representitives
In a truly democratic society, you are your representative, this is true of a democratic republic though.

In Democratic republics, it's a little more difficult because your representative has their own agenda, and many people who do vote merely vote for the person who's already in office.
Politics are a little more complicated than just "vote and your vote is equal to everyone else's"

fuck off smokers

go abuse adderall if you need your fix, at least i won't have to smell you then.

>>5145336
How can secondhand smoke be a load of horseshit.
Let's say there's no study that proves secondhand smoke to be dangerous but firshand smoke is obviously harmful (or do you deny that too?).
There's two ways smoke exists from a lit cigarette. 1. The smoke which comes from the lit tip of the cigarette and gets into the air just by the lit tip burning slowly off.
2. The smoker inhales the smoke through a filter and exhales the same smoke into the air.

Now you have unfiltered smoke and filtered, exhaled smoke.

Now you breathe that in. It's the same or worse smoke (because partly unfiltered). How can you not see that. Holy fuck.

>>5145355
>I didn't know people smoked in bars. Why didn't anybody tell me people smoked in bars before I took this job?
Try harder, entitledfag.

>>5145364
shut up nerd

>>5145362

>>5145355
>cause people would be totally willing to just quit there job like that
Thats probably something you should be aware of before accepting a position

This is one of the dumbest threads I've seen in weeks on here.
>smokers confirmed for retards
Also, go back to /pol/, shit heads. This relates to neither food nor cooking.

>>5145359
Anecdotal evidence of me sitting in pretty empty bars with the owners telling me how much it has hurt business, dude?
Maybe my information should come from the people that make the laws and hurt these business people. How's that?

>>5145364
>Now you breathe that in. It's the same or worse smoke (because partly unfiltered)

Nope. Because nobody is inhaling 100% secondhand smoke. They aren't breathing "that" in, as you wrote, they are inhaling air, which contains some secondhand smoke that wafted over. In other words, the concentration of 2ndhand smoke is greatly decreased compared to inhaling directly from a cigarette.

>>5145381
>Anecdotal evidence of me sitting in pretty empty bars with the owners telling me how much it has hurt business, dude?

that's what anecdotal evidence is you moron

seriously is a wikipedo search that difficult for you?

>>5145384
Smoke is smoke. Sure inhaling less is better than inhaling more, but that in no way suggests inhaling any amount is good

>>5145381
3 bar owners is not the majority. And if smokers not being there hurt their business that much, they are obviously doing something wrong, business wise. So yeah, get fucked with your anecdotal evidence.

>>5145389
It's called a fucking fact where I come from.

>>5145396
>some asshole on 4chan telling us his bar stories
>a fact

my sides, do you come from the people's republic?

>>5145392

it's not good but you're barely inhaling anything and that's only when you're around smokers, what's that going to add up over the course of your lifetime, the equivalent of half a pack of cigarettes at best?

>>5145395
>3 bar owners is not the majority
It is on my block

>>5145400
>I only do a little heroin, so its good for me

Any quantity of cigarette smoke is bad for you, every single molecule of it that you inhale increases your probability of developing cancer

>>5145402
Okay. I get it. You're an idiot.

>>5145411
>Any quantity of cigarette smoke is bad for you, every single molecule of it that you inhale increases your probability of developing cancer
lol
wow

>>5145400
>In 2008, there were more than 161,000 deaths attributed to lung cancer in the United States. Of these deaths, an estimated 10% to 15% were caused by factors other than first-hand smoking; equivalent to 16,000 to 24,000 deaths annually. Slightly more than half of the lung cancer deaths caused by factors other than first-hand smoking were found in nonsmokers. Lung cancer in non-smokers may well be considered one of the most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Clinical epidemiology of lung cancer has linked the primary factors closely tied to lung cancer in non-smokers as exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, carcinogens including radon, and other indoor air pollutants.[96]

lung cancer used to be a rarely seen illness until the advent of cigarettes

>>5145412
An idiot with my finger on the pulse of the real world.

>>5145420
more like an idiot with his finger on the pulse of his own asperger's

>>5145415
Its all probability. The more smoke you inhale the more likely you are to develop cancer, there is no quantity at which it does add to this risk (quite unlike say alcohol which is beneficial in moderate amounts and only bad in extreme amounts)

>>5145392

Oh, I agree that you are technically still inhaling some smoke, and that's worse than inhaling no smoke. But that's a difference of semantics and argument only. In reality it is not so clearcut. Everything we do is risky. Use an electrical appliance? Might get shocked. Around other human beings? Might catch a disease or get assaulted. Riding in a motor vehicle? Accident risk.

Practically speaking nothing is without risk. The question really ought to be is 2ndhand smoke bad enough to warrant doing something about it. In my opinion the answer to that is clearly no. The health risks of 2ndhand smoke have not been proven, in my opinion, to justify legal restriction.

I'm lost, is this /pol/?

>>5144626
Yeah, I have a feeling most of the people in this thread are too young to have seen what smoking can really do to people. It's pretty depressing.

>>5145436
no, just a bunch of addicts trying to defend their addiction.

tobacco is as addictive as cocaine. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1859920))
(http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/226893.php))

better go get your fix, boys.

>>5145429
Fact is I have polled more bar owners about smoking bans than you have and it doesn't agree with your agenda therefore you are mad as all get out.

>>5145411
>Any quantity of cigarette smoke is bad for you, every single molecule of it that you inhale increases your probability of developing cancer

Indeed. The question is it bad enough to matter.

>>5145445
>all get out

i didn't think they let rednecks use the internet

guess it really is 2014

>>5145448
It's actually more addictive than cocaine.

>>5145458
If a redneck has compiled more firsthand information than you can be bothered to, what does that make you?
Careful with your answer, Mr. 5th Avenue.

>>5145467
>admits he's a redneck

LOL

how many sisters have you fucked? be honest.

>>5145467
First hand information is bad, for one you have an incredibly small sample size, and because of this the information is likely to be meaningless and will bias you

>>5145448

Don't get me wrong. Smoking is fucking disgusting. But what's the point of arguing that it's addictive? That detail is irrelevant. It's the health risks that are the problem, not the addiction.

>>5145469
There's a time limit on this test, fancyboy.

>>5145400
>barely anything
>enough to kill thousands of people every year + an unmeasured number
Wtf

and>>5145415
He's right though:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

>>5145472
Jesus. We're truly doomed if this is what is really believed.

>>5145484
You having 3 people you talked to who gave you anecdotes and no facts is in no way better than relying on 3rd party information. It is significantly worse

>>5145491
>and no facts
Goddammit I'm going out drinking.
And smoking.

>>5145030
>You wouldn't want to sit in a restaurant surrounded by people with extreme BO being blown at you by oscillating fans
except that this isn't banned in private establishments, and is something i have to deal with all the fucking time (obviously the fans aren't directed at me, but neither is smoke)

i don't understand this entire thread. people aren't stupid enough to go to smoke heavy bars when they don't smoke, why is it assumed that they're stupid enough to go to restaurants that allow smoking?

>"smoking should be allowed in bars"
>241 posts and 10 image replies omitted.

>>5145520
All bars were smoke-heavy.

You would think it would be common decency to step onto the patio for a few minutes to feed your filthy fucking habit, but instead every bar was filled with a suffocating amount of smoke and bar owners were too afraid of alienating under half their customers to tell them to take it outside.

>>5145524
A hot topic indeed.
Stay tuned for not tipping your waiter for forgetting the ketchup for your steak.

I smoke and don't want to be inside anywhere people are smoking. It's even pretty gross in the car with someone else. Have you been inside a smoking casino? DEAR LORD.

Banning it seems a little too far though. There is a bar by me that built a real nice smoking patio, they even had a some taps out there. It got shut down though....they can't have the employees serving out there (even though they all smoke). Seems silly.

>>5145531
>You would think it would be common decency to find another establishment that fit your wants
Now we're agreeing.

>>5144547
cry some more

>>5145545
Filthy addict. It is an alcohol bar that sells food, not a tobacco bar, which used to be a thing here before the ban. You are not a majority, you are an unhealthy minority with such arrogance and belligerence that you believe everyone else such suffer for your lack of self control. You are not better than the fatties.

>>5145473
pure heroin is relatively harmless when used over the long term

>Like most opioids, unadulterated heroin does not cause many long-term complications other than dependence and constipation.[39]

>It's the health risks that are the problem, not the addiction

>>5145553
>goes to bars
>calls others 'unhealthy'
u win, m8
You're right captcha, I am a collinson stupidvest

>>5145553
they're actually worse

fatties cause nothing besides financial harm to others

addict smokers pollute the environment, cause harm to others directly through second hand smoke (inb4 conspiracies) and cause financial harm to others

>consenting adults go to establishment to drink poison
>consenting adults cannot go to establishment to smoke poison

comeon people

>>5145562
Don't forget they pay a bunch in taxes by purchasing tobacco.

>>5145541
>I smoke and don't want to be inside anywhere people are smoking.
Honestly, same here. It seems contradictory, but second-hand smells like shit and gives me a headache. It's fine if I'm smoking, though, so maybe I'm just an asshole.

>>5145553
>everyone who advocates the rights of business owners to allow smoking MUST be a smoking

you are worse than the fatties AND the smokers

>>5145567
nothing close to the strain placed on the hospital and healthcare system by treating their lung cancer.

>>5145558
>watch local band
>drink two bears
>go home
>get called unhealthy by someone defending smoking indoors

HOW HARD WERE YOU SHAKEN AS A CHILD? DO YOU WANT TO SEE IF I CAN OUT-DO YOUR PARENTS?

>>5145573
Are you even trying anymore?

>>5145556
>pure heroin is relatively harmless when used over the long term

Indeed, assuming no overdose. What's the problem again?

>>5145573
I dunno? Do you know?

>>5145577
>listening to loud music in an enclosed space with no hearing protection. Ban it.
I can do this all day, son.

>>5145579
>>5145583
>resorts to babble when his addiction is questioned

more addictive than cocaine indeed

you smokers are pure human trash, as bad if not worse than the pedophiles. at least pedos don't give little kids cancer.

>>5145591

yeah they just fuck their lives up

>>5145591
I was just looking for some numbers or something. I wasn't saying you were wrong.

>>5145586
Funny thing about music, it isn't inherently loud. In fact, a small venue featuring a Celtic influenced band has no reason for the music to be anywhere near loud enough to cause hearing damage.

I have no doubt you can make hilariously biased assumptions all day long.

>>5145563
But I want to drink my poison without having any smoker force me to smoke this shit.
Drinking is my decision, smoking not.

>>5145591
pedophile detected